What is the purpose of a Phase I Archaeological Survey?

Contents:

 

A Phase I Archaeological Survey is designed to:

provide a description of the archaeological resources within the project area. (Because, in general, little is known about the archaeological sites that may be encountered in an area, all archaeological sites should be recorded on OAI forms). The methodology of a research design for a Phase I survey must, therefore, be adequate to make it highly probable that all sites will be detected. Sites may be identified through a combination of documentary research, informant interviews, surface reconnaissance, and subsurface testing. Any or all of these techniques may be used in a particular survey. The Phase I work should result in the discovery of unrecorded sites and the confirmation of the existence and location of previously recorded sites in the project area. In sum, the goal of a Phase I survey is to identify and record on OAI forms both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources within the project area.

The results of the Phase I survey are to be incorporated into a report meeting the minimum standards and specifications of the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. The report serves as the basis for comment by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office on the adequacy of the Phase I survey and the need for additional work. Each site identified during Phase I survey should be given comprehensive and detailed documentation individually and separately from other sites. If no archaeological resources are discovered and the report reflects an adequate consideration of the potential for archaeological resources, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office will recommend that no further investigations are needed (OHPO 1994).

The purpose of the Phase I survey, then, is two-fold. First, the Phase I survey serves to identify and describe archaeological sites within the defined project area (e.g., proposed development). Second, the results of the Phase I survey should be used to determine the significance or potential significance of any archaeological site that will be impacted by the proposed project and to make recommendations pertaining to the eligibility or potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 

National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation

The second purpose of the Phase I archaeological survey is to evaluate the significance or potential significance of archaeological sites identified within the project area. In general terms, significance is a measure of a site’s eligibility for inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places. Four criteria are used to evaluate NRHP eligibility:
The quality of significance in American History, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. that has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In most cases, only Criterion D applies to archaeological sites. In other words, an archaeological site may be eligible for the NRHP if it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Applied to archaeology, Criterion D is rather open-ended and somewhat subjective. Given the current state of the discipline, all archaeological data has the potential to yield information important to prehistory or history. For example, data derived from the distribution of a particular projectile point type found in plowzone contexts across Ohio is important to archaeologists who are interested in this type of distributional study. The data from numerous “site” locations combined has the potential to contribute greatly to our understanding of prehistory or history. Such sites by themselves, however, may not be considered eligible for the NRHP.
The open-ended and subjective nature of Criterion D creates the potential for subjective site evaluations. To mitigate the potential for subjective site evaluations, Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants employs a generalized set of site-specific criteria for the purposes of making consistent evaluations. As was mention above, the Phase I investigation does not always produce enough information to make an adequate evaluation. Certain site attributes, however, may indicate that a site has the potential to be eligible under Criterion D. In these cases, additional work at the Phase II assessment level is recommended.

Prehistoric site attributes that may lead to a recommendation for NRHP eligibility or potential eligibility may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: 1) direct or indirect evidence of the presence of intact subsurface features, 2) evidence of intact archaeological deposits, such as midden deposits and earthworks 3) evidence for vertical and/or horizontal stratigraphy (artifact patterning), 5) evidence for limited temporal affiliation, and 6) artifact assemblage variability. 


Evidence for Subsurface Features

The Phase I archaeological survey is designed to identify and record sites. This is typically conducted by means of surface collection and/or shovel testing at a regular interval. Both field techniques are not technically designed to identify subsurface features. On rare occasions it is possible to identify subsurface features in shovel tests or during surface surveys. When direct evidence for subsurface features is identified, it is reasonable to recommend that the site is eligible or potentially eligible, depending on the nature and integrity of that evidence. Given the coarse interval typically used during Phase I investigations, it is very possible to miss direct evidence of subsurface features. Both shovel testing and surface collection can, however, result in the identification of indirect evidence for the potential presence of subsurface features. The presence of fire-cracked rock at an archaeological site is an indirect indicator for the presence of subsurface features. Because this material is created from the thermal alteration of stone, it is reasonable to suggest that the inhabitants of the site used thermal facilities. That is, it can be assumed that thermal features are present or were once present at the site. Historic-era cultivation and other post-depositional processes, however, may damage, destroy, or remove such features. Because the integrity of the features may not be knowable at the Phase I survey level, additional work would be recommended at a Phase II level to investigate the potential for intact features.
Another line of indirect evidence that may suggest the presence of subsurface features at a site is the recovery of prehistoric pottery and bone. Both pottery and bone are very fragile and are subject to rapid deterioration and decomposition when exposed. If cultivation occurs regularly over a site area, the upper portions of subsurface features turn-up and are exposed to the surface. In other words, fragile archaeological materials from feature contexts may periodically be exposed to the plowzone and be visible during archaeological surveys.

Evidence of Intact Archaeological Deposits

The presence of intact archaeological deposits, such as midden deposits, earthworks, or above ground features, may lead to a recommendation for eligibility or potential eligibility. Most of Ohio has been cultivated during the historic period. Because of this, most prehistoric site middens, earthworks, and other above ground features have been incorporated into the plowzone. It is also very possible that archaeological deposits remain relatively undisturbed by cultivation and other severe post-depositional process. For example, the lower portions of midden deposits may not be incorporated into the plowzone. Shovel test profiles may reveal a plowzone layer above truncated midden deposits and/or truncated earthworks. Surface surveys may identify subtle surface anomalies that may suggest the presence of earthworks and other above ground features. Archival information, such as Mills’ Atlas and the Ohio Archaeological Inventory, is often useful for identifying previously recorded earthworks and mounds. It must also be noted that it is very possible to miss truncated earthworks and other features at the Phase I survey level.

Evidence for Vertical and/or Horizontal Stratigraphy

Evidence for vertical and horizontal stratigraphy may also lead to a recommendation for eligibility or potential eligibility. Vertical stratigraphy refers to the layering of archaeological deposits. The law of superposition dictates that lower depositional layers are older than the layers above. Such deposits are typically found in alluvial and colluvial settings. Shovel testing and surface survey are not designed to identify vertical stratigraphy. In alluvial and colluvial settings, it may be necessary to recommend deep testing with the use of a backhoe. This evaluation would be based on the age of the landform and evidence for sediment deposition. One way to determine the age of a landform is to examine any archaeological deposits that may be present at the surface. For example, if old archaeological deposits (e.g., such as Paleoindian or Early Archaic) were present at the surface of the landform, then it would be reasonable to suggest that the landform is old, and does not require deep testing. If the archaeological deposits are relatively recent (e.g., Late Woodland) and no older artifacts are recovered, then it would be reasonable to suggest that there is potential for buried archaeological deposits. A deep testing strategy would be recommended.
Horizontal stratigraphy refers to the spatial segregation of temporally discrete archaeological deposits. Temporally distinct, but frequently overlapping, archaeological deposits may be visible from archaeological data collected from surface collection and shovel testing. In the event that such patterning is evident at a site, it is reasonable to recommend additional work to further delineate the patterning.
A more general type of artifact patterning, in addition to temporally distinct patterning (horizontal stratigraphy), may also lead to a recommendation for site eligibility or potential eligibility. Data derived from shovel testing and/or controlled surface collection may reflect patterns of different types of artifacts. This patterning may be reflected in the distribution of different flint types, different tool types, fire cracked rock, stone tool manufacturing debris, and any other artifact type. Such patterning may represent different activity areas, house locations, or refuse locations (dumps). 

Evidence for Limited Temporal Affiliation 

As archaeological data accumulate, it is realized that prehistoric peoples of all temporal periods frequently occupied the same landforms. As a result, most prehistoric archaeological sites contain multiple temporal components. If temporal data represents considerable temporal depth in the absence of other important site attributes, then it might be reasonable to recommend that the site is not eligible. Such data may indicate that the site is so blurred or muddled by multiple occupations that the potential for the site to yield new information is limited. However, if the temporal depth appears to be limited to a single temporal period, it may be reasonable to recommend that the site is eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register.




Artifact Assemblage Variability 

Models for prehistoric settlement organization based on ethnographic data suggest that prehistoric groups occupy sites for various purposes within dynamic settlement systems (Binford 1980). Artifact assemblages, then, are highly variable. Cultural resource management archaeologists frequently use artifact quantity to make assessments of site significance. The assumption is that more substantial, or intensive, site occupations result in the deposition and accumulation of more debris than less substantial occupations. The strength of this assumption, however, is better tested when artifact richness is considered. Artifact “richness” refers to the number of different artifact types. For example, an assemblage with projectile points, flake tools, fire-cracked rock, chopping tools, scarping tools, and boring tools are rich in artifact diversity. Assemblages with an abundance of stone tool manufacturing debris and biface fragments are less rich in terms of artifact diversity. Lithic debris quantity should not be used as a basis for assessing site eligibility (Pecora 2001; 2002). Long-term residential sites, containing numerous features and house patterns, and high artifact richness, may also contain very little or no lithic debris. Whereas a site produced during a very short-term occupation that involved the procurement and reduction of lithic material may contain an abundance of lithic debris. Lithic assemblages as a whole are the product of the organization of stone tool reduction, rather than a reflection of settlement type.


References

Binford, L.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-21.

Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO)
1994 Archaeology Guidelines. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

Pecora, A. M.
2001 Chipped Stone Tool Production Strategies and Lithic Debitage Patterns. In Lithic Debitage Analysis: Studies in Context, Form, and Meaning. Edited by W. Andrefsky. University of Utah Press.

2002 The Organization of Chipped-Stone Tool Manufacture and the Formation of Lithic Assemblages. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.